This is one thing that I agree with George Carlin, except for the racial component of it: all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, color, etc, engage in this overly-flattering language, but his basic premise is definitely correct.

This also gives a couple of questions: who do these people who believe that other people need to be protected from hearing the cold, hard truth about themselves actually believe that they're protecting? Aren't they aware that trying to protect people from hearing the actual negative truth about themselves, is a form of bigotry? I'm not a fan of President George W. Bush and rare if ever do I ever quote him, but what Carlin calls soft language is actually is part of the soft bigotry of low expectations: that you have to lower your standards so some Americans can actually succeed. And in this case you have to hide the truth to protect other people's feelings.

The only way that people can ever approve at anything especially the people who have real weaknesses and issues, is to first know what the hell is wrong with them and where they're coming up short: except perhaps for short people, or am I supposed to say little people, because somehow short people is now offensive. If you don't know what your weaknesses are, how you supposed to correct them?

You take your car into the shop for repairs and you think the problem with the car is a low battery, when really the engine is rusting out and you tell your mechanic it's the battery and don't bother to look at anything else: sure, your battery might be fixed, but what about the rusted engine? And besides, if your mechanic is a professional, they'll probably look at your entire car anyway to see why the car isn't running properly anyway and then go about fixing the car or at least telling you what's wrong with your car: "Mr. Wilson, actually there's a big problem with your engine and we need to fix it before your car can run properly again. And we can fix your battery as well." You have to first know the truth about yourself, before you can fix what's wrong with you.

Explain to me how calling an obese person physically challenged or size deficient, help that person deal with their obesity and being fat: it sure as hell won't help them lose any weight, especially if they have some phobia about being obese and feel the need for people to be nice about their obesity. In a situation like that the obese person would probably be better off with someone who actually cares about them and their health getting in their face and telling them: "you're eating yourself to death, you pig!" Or even using some humor and saying: "their poor people who are starving right now, because you're taking too much food. You're not the only person on this planet who gets hungry: you just eat the most food."

And I'm not talking about using humor and being critical to put someone down, but to be constructive by showing the person their flaws and the consequences of them and them giving them an avenue they can take to improve. Insulting people to just get laughs, is not even funny unless you're an asshole who gets kicks out of people being put down. But using humor in a constructive way to show someone their flaws, but to help them improve can be very useful.

Feeling good and being good, are not the same things: athletes and teams lose sporting events all the time because they weren't prepared for their opponents. They thought they were much better than they actually were or their opponent wasn't nearly as good as they thought and lost the game, fight, match, whatever it might be, because they didn't do their homework and didn't play hard and well enough. You have to know where you are and where you stand in life, to know where you are and where you stand in life. Which sounds like the best example of stating the obvious in the history of the world and if that was Captain Obvious making that statement, the Captain would then get promoted to Major Obvious immediately.

But that doesn't make the truth lest truthful and less important. And using soft language to hide one's weaknesses, doesn't do a damn thing to help the person you claim to care about, because if anything those flaws will just grow, because the person isn't aware of their flaws and isn't doing anything to address them.

Thursday, May 23, 2019

"Thanks to the Great Recession of 2008 and a lack of proper education, Millennial's financial status has them voting in favor of Socialism. Will they wake up and see it’s one of the greatest threats to America today? Find out in this episode of Straight Talk!"

I guess I have a different take here even though I agree with Robin Kinderman that the Great Recession and leftist politicians ( shall we call them ) coming around and promising them all sorts of so-called free stuff to help them get by, is why a lot of Millennials support of socialism. But even if you grant all of that you would have to forget about another possibility of why Millennials say they support socialism and not consider that there might be social and cultural reasons why some Millennials at least say they support socialism.

Every young generation at least since the TV age has had some love affair with socialism, at least until they enter their 30s and grow up: get a good job, get married, have kids, buy their first home, etc. And then that love affair for socialism goes away once they start paying taxes and having other bills to pay, and then realize that they can now support themselves and decide that they're making a good living now and can pay their own way, don't need government taking care of them, and ask why should they be paying so much in taxes, if they don't need those government services.

Socialism was popular with young Baby Boomers and then the 1980s comes around with the economic boom from that decade, as well Boomers are already grown up by then and now have kids, with their own homes, making a good living, and no longer want socialism simply because they don't believe that they need it. My Generation X, has never had any love affair for socialism for the most part, because we grew up during great economic times for the most part and have decided that we don't want it for the most part. Millennials, are different because a lot of them grew up, or just out of college during the Great Recession and socialism is more appealing to them which is why a politician like Bernie Sanders ( a self-described Democratic Socialist ) has so much appeal for them.

But the economy and whatever current economic times the country might be going through are not the only reasons why some people might fall in love with socialism: as I mentioned earlier, Millennials today say they like socialism and Socialists, because Socialists are cool. So much about being a Millennial is being cool; having all the designer clothes, all the gadgets, following the right celebrities, TV programs, movies, entertainment in general, and following Socialists, because of all the political factions in America, Socialists are always the coolest. Which is why so many so-called Hollywood Leftists, claim to either be Socialists themselves ( even though they're some of the richest people in America and at least love capitalism privately and are actually Liberal Democrats or Conservatives politically, at least as far as how they personally live and not Socialists ) or back Socialists, because they always want to be cool ( or awesome ) themselves.

I don't think you'll ever convince me that Millennials actually love socialism as an ideology and actually believe in everything that comes from the socialist philosophy: all the high taxes, regulations, restrictions on personal wealth and freedom in general, centralization of governmental power and all the government in general. Maybe when they're in their 40s and still claiming to be Socialists and are living on communes and are no longer personally subsidizing Americans capitalism with their real love affairs for new technology, celebrity culture, coffee houses, designer clothing, and just live off what they personally make and share their own wealth, then maybe I'll start taking them seriously as Socialists, who actually support the socialist philosophy and not just looking to be part of some social fad and bandwagon.

I mean seriously, if you did a national poll and the only people you polled were Millennials and asked them would you give up all your gadgets, coffee houses, stopped favorite celebrities, reality TV, social media, Hollywood, and designer clothing, in order to defeat and end American capitalism: how many would even say they would do that, let alone actually do that? I doubt many would at least actually give up all if any of their favorite American capitalist hobbies and activities just to defeat American capitalism. At the end of the day, Millennials love American capitalism too. Perhaps not as mush as Professor Milton Friedman, but they love American capitalism and not socialism. Just look at their own personal spending habits and lifestyles.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Source:American Thinker- U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy: the father of McCarthyite fascism

"On April 6, 2019, AT published the article, “On Joe McCarthy, Washington Post Gets It Embarrassingly Wrong,” by the estimable Jack Cashill. It drew hundreds of comments, which were overwhelmingly laudatory of McCarthy. The relatively few anti-McCarthy comments were pounced on by the McCarthy partisans.

McCarthy’s (few) detractors in the comments section of that article included this writer. My comments against McCarthy drew lots of ire and opprobrium from his fans. I thought that it would be best to write a rejoinder.

Perhaps my disdain for McCarthy is almost genetic, for it comes from my late father’s personal knowledge of him. My father, Lt. Col. Anthony R. Nollet, was a Marine Corps aviator and knew McCarthy well, they having served together in the same squadron that flew Douglas Dauntless SBD dive-bombers in the South Pacific. McCarthy was the Air Intelligence Officer for that squadron. My father passed on to posterity three stories about McCarthy, based on his personal observations. Perhaps this “oral history” has predisposed me to despise McCarthy.

"In mid-1954, a riveted nation watched Senator Joseph McCarthy accuse the U.S. Army of being infiltrated by communists. But the army's lawyer, Joseph Welch refused to be bullied, and struck back.

From the Series: America in Color: The 1950s"

When I first saw this article from the right-wing pro-Trumpian American Thinker, I thought I might actually get to read an article from an actual Conservative, about how real Conservatives don't actually support Joe McCarthy and his attempts to out Americans simply because they're Communists who use their First Amendment right to free speech in this county. Which protects every American's right to free speech including radicals like Communists and Socialists on the Far-Left and Nationalists and other radicals on the Far-Right.

If anything the First Amendment protects radicals right to free speech more than mainstream Americans, because radicals need more protection. But silly me this article from Michael Nullet was about Joe McCarthy welching on his card debts when he was in the U.S. Marines. So I guess I'll have to make the argument for why Conservatives don't support McCarthyism and every other form of fascism Right or Left all by myself. Which might be more fun anyway.

This might sound silly to anyone on the Far-Right, as well as hyper-partisans on the Far-Left: but when I think of Conservatives and conservatism, I look at it from a constitutional and political perspective, not religious, cultural, or tribalist and people who view themselves as the real Patriots ( whatever the country is ) and anyone who disagrees with them, or looks different, practices a different religion, live a different lifestyle, as traitors or invaders to their beloved country.

"Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity.[2] The more traditional elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were."

So if you're an actual Conservative you not only believe in things like the U.S, Constitution and the First Amendment ( which guarantees our right to free speech ) but you believe in conserving those rights and values. Remember: Conservatives are supposed to believe in conserving. So you're not looking for government to punish people and out them simply because they hold political views that are either not mainstream or inline with the current government's thinking.

It's that old Ronald Reagan line and I'm paraphrasing here, but that democracy is big enough for the mainstream thinkers, as well as the radicals. And when you attempt to harm and eliminate the free speech rights of one side, simply because you don't like what they have to say, you put your own free speech rights in jeopardy, because then the'll come for you. Which is something that these so-called social justice warriors on the Far-Left with their political correctness movement simply don't understand.

There was nothing conservative about Joe McCarthy's fascist McCarthyism from the 1950s, at least from a political or constitutional perspective: you don't conserve the First Amendment by attacking the free speech rights of people that you don't agree with and are offended by. Of course we don't want Communists running our country and don't want communism in our government, but you don't defeat Communists and communism by acting like them, but by beating them with facts and evidence in the free market of ideas known as liberal democracy.

During the 2020 presidential primaries in the Democratic Party especially with the rise of socialism ( or democratic socialism ) in the Democratic Party, we're going to hear labels like Progressive, Socialist, and Democratic Socialist thrown out a lot. Especially thrown around like they're all the same things, or thrown around the difference between a Socialist and a Progressive is the difference between powerful and strong, or tiny and miniature, shrimp and dwarf, etc: when the fact is Progressive, is not just different from Socialist ( democratic or communist ) but clearly different. Which is what I'm going to layout with this piece.

When people think of Progressives, they tend to think of Teddy Roosevelt and his square deal which gave America its regulatory state. Or they think of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which gave America its public safety net. Harry Truman and his Fair Deal, which would've been an expansion of the New Deal. Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society and the expansion of the New Deal. And today's so-called Progressives ( Democratic Socialists, actually ) say what they want to do with their welfare state agenda is simply just expand it and give Americans more welfare state benefits.

There a lot of problems with comparing today's so-called Progressives, with the Progressives of before who truly are the Progressives: Progressives like the men that I've already mentioned and we're just talking about government economic policy so far, but Progressives are not anti-capitalist, not anti-individual, not even anti-individual freedom: if anything Progressives believe more in individual freedom than even Conservatives and even Libertarians, because Progressives believe that individual freedom should be for everyone and not just to people that are born to wealth.

And where Progressives really separate from Conservatives and Libertarians, as well as Socialists, is that they believe government should be used so that everyone can achieve individual freedom. Instead of Socialists, who view individual freedom as selfish and you need a big national government to take care of everyone else instead. And Conservatives and Libertarians, who believe that government has no role in expanding freedom, that freedom can be achieved by everyone on their own.

If you look at what Progressives have truly accomplished and what they believe in, instead of looking at what Socialists have accomplished ( democratic or communist ) and what they believe in and have accomplished, you know that Progressives are actually very different from Socialists: the Square Deal, which gave us our regulatory state. The New Deal, which was a public safety net for people who truly fall on hard times and in real need of financial assistance. And the Great Society, which was an expansion of the public safety net ( not welfare state ) where every senior American is guaranteed health insurance and more financial assistance for low-income Americans.

The other thing about Progressives and progressivism and why at least I believe it has real national appeal in America, is because it's bipartisan and very practical: people who are supposed to be Centrists in America, are actually very Progressive. Like Republican Senator Susan Collins, or Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, former Vice President and current Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden and I could go on. America has moved so far to the Right and Left now that Progressives look like the New-Centrists, with progressivism perhaps becoming the most mainstream political philosophy in America. Progressives, are Progressives, not Socialists and the there's a big difference.

"In the Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution, Independent congressman, presidential candidate and activist Bernie Sanders continues his fight against the imbalances in the nation’s status quo, and shows you how to make a difference to effect the changes America―and the world―need to create a better tomorrow.

Throughout the Presidential campaign, Senator Bernie Sanders promised voters a future to believe in through his progressive platform and a vision for America worth fighting for. This vision calls for an economic, environmental, health care, and social justice revolution beyond the stagnant agendas of Democrat and Republican politicians to build an equitable future for all Americans―especially the younger generation that will inherit the consequences of decisions made now.

Inside this practical and inspiring guide to effecting change in today’s world, you’ll learn how to:
· Understand and navigate the current system of policy and government
· Work to change the system to reflect your values and to protect our society’s most vulnerable
· Organize for the causes you care about most
· Resources for further reading and organizations to get involved with

With more than two decades of Washington D.C. insider knowledge and experience, Senator Sanders knows how to fight and change the system from within, a system desperately in need of reform in health care, immigration, taxes, higher education, climate change, and criminal justice.

If there is anything that I don't respect and even don't like about Senator Bernie Sanders when he talks about his own politics now, is how he now self-describes his own politics. He doesn't run away from either the Democratic Socialist or Socialist label now, but always jumps to correct the person that he's talking to or his questioning him in saying that: "I'm a Democratic Socialist" when someone calls him a Socialist. He does that because he doesn't want to be confused with Communists ( who are authoritarian Socialists ) and I understand that. What he personally supports and backs now at least since he's been n the Senate if not his entire career in Congress, would put him on the Democratic Socialist wing of Socialists and socialism and not with Communists.

It's not that Senator Sanders is quick to correct people when they call him a Socialist and say that he's a Socialist that I have an issue with and instead goes by Democratic Socialist, it's that he now tries to lump in Progressives and progressivism with his form of socialism ( can I call it ) as if they're the same things when they're not. Bernie, is way to the left of Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and even Senator Sherrod Brown today ( who really is a Progressive ) and more inline with Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas, David McReynolds, George McGovern, and other prominent Democratic Socialists from back in the day.

You put Fidel Castro, Bernie Sanders, and Theodore Roosevelt, all in the same room and you have three different political animals all representing three different political factions and ideologies.

Fidel, being the Communist. Bernie, being the Democratic Socialist. And TR, representing the Progressives. The test of whether someone is a Progressive or not, is not about how much government that person believes in and how high taxes should be, but how much do they believe in progress, how fast that progress should to be achieved, and does government have a major role in trying to create that progress or not.

If we went by Bernie Sanders of a Progressive, then Fidel Castro would be the most progressive of these three men, even though a lot if not most of what Fidel believes in is very regressive with all the state control, lack of checks and balances on government, and lack of individual freedom in all forms that Communists believe in.

Bernie Sanders, is a Democratic Socialist, pure and simple: that means he's someone who believes in a capitalist, private enterprise economic system, but that you need a national government large enough to ensure that no one has to go without the basic necessities of life. Which is where a welfare state comes in and that taxes have to be high enough across the board to fund that welfare state. But also to prevent people from being individually wealthy on their own, while others live in poverty or are part of a struggling working class.

Which is very different from a Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or a Lyndon Johnson who believed in a public safety net for people who truly needed it, but that for people who are dong well and can afford to take care of themselves, those people should be allowed to do that and make their own economic decisions, since they don't need big government to do that for them.

Monday, May 20, 2019

"When wealthy philanthropist Richard Cross is arrested for the murder of his mistress's 15-year-old sister, he secures the services of defense attorney Ted Hoffman. Within days, though, a mysterious woman comes forward to provide Cross (Stanley Tucci) with an alibi. He is released and the police quickly charge actor Neil Avedon with the homicide. When Cross pleads with Ted (Daniel Benzali) to defend Neil, the attorney accepts the case."

Just to give you little background about Murder One and the genre in Hollywood that it represented: in the late 1970s with superstar shows like Dallas, soap operas went prime time. Dallas with CBS, that ABC got into the prime time soap opera game with Dynasty. CBS, launched another prime time soap with Falcon Crest. NBC, with St. Elsewhere. ABC, in the mid and late 1980s with Thirty Something. Because of Generation X, shows like Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place in the early 90s. And then prime time soaps just even bigger in the mid 90s with shows like NYPD Blue ( from ABC ) and then ER. ( From NBC )

Murder One, ( from ABC ) was different at least in the sense that it was a prime time soap opera dealing with the criminal justice system and that the show was almost exclusively from the point of the view of the defense team. When you saw the prosecutors, they were either in court, giving a press conference, or in communication with the defense team. And the first season of Murder One did have several other legal and criminal cases that Hoffman & Associates dealt with, but their biggest cases was the Neal Avdeon who was a Hollywood actor who was accused of killing his girlfriend.

By the midpoint of season one, Murder One was practically all about the Avedon case where the general partner of Hoffman & Associates Ted Hoffman, is completely tied up and basically has his life taken over by this one murder case and getting his client acquitted of the murder charge.

There are shows and series that seem to go on forever that I wish I had never heard of, but because they're so popular, even though they're so stupid where the main characters on the show are really only famous for getting into tense, heated, public arguments and fights. Where these people are basically just losers who can't stay out of trouble. And of course I'm thinking of what's called reality TV.

And then there are what I at least call cookie-cutter sitcoms where it's hard to tell one of these shows from another, because they're all basically about the same things: young to early middle age people, who aren't married, no kids, live in lofts that are probably in New York and spend most of their time hanging out at coffee houses and places like that. And those shows go on forever, even though there's really not much if any difference from one cookie-cutter sitcom to another other than the cast members are different, because that's what young people are into.

Murder One, falls into a different category as a show that had a great cast, had great writers, that wasn't like the other shows that it was competing with, but instead almost completely different; maybe only LA Law could you compare with Murder One and yet Murder One despite everything that it had going for it with the great background and depth to that show, it doesn't make and is gone after season 2.

ABC and Steven Bochco made some fatal mistakes with Murder One: going up against ER on the same night and time slot during season one, which just killed the ratings of Murder One right off the bat. And then replacing Daniel Benzali who was perfect for the role of Ted Hoffman, with Anthony LaPaglia, who is a fine actor, but not someone you want as your lead actor in a big show like this. But Murder One, didn't fail because it had cheesy writing, or a weak cast, weak directing, or anything like that, but of how it was managed with the tools that they had. It should've had its own time slot from episode one and let the show ride on its own.

Friday, May 17, 2019

"George Carlin Back in town" Source:HBO: George Carlin- On Pro-LifeI'm aware that writing satire about abortion is risky, so before someone feels the need to point that out to me, I just thought that I lay out that I already know that. But with the Alabama antiabortion law this week, I feel the need to mention this and even use humor to do that, because of how hypocritical and frankly dishonest people who say they're pro-life are on this issue. They're just asking for a verbal ass kicking on this issue. It's almost as if they're walking up to me and begging me to set them straight on this. Hearing someone who says they're pro-life on abortion and pro-life in general, even though they don't seem to give a damn ( to be kind ) about kids being shot in school, or at least not to the point that they're willing to do a damn thing about it, is like hearing some so-called pro-choice leftist who is really only pro-choice on abortion and perhaps a couple other issues, even though they want big government telling people what they can do on practically every other personal choice issue everything from gambling to what people can eat and drink. Being pro-choice on abortion, doesn't make you pro-choice: it just means you're pro-choice on one issue. And how pro-choice you are in general, depends on what your positions are on a whole host of other issues. And being pro-life on abortion, doesn't make you pro-life if you believe that mentally handicapped and criminally insane people have a constitutional right to a firearm and easy access to our schools in this country. It just means that you are antiabortion. When someone claims they're pro-life because they oppose abortion, try to find out how pro-life they are and ask about a how they feel about a whole host of other life issues and not just firearms, but the lives of low-income children who are stuck in awful schools and everything else: what's life like for poor children in this country and do they care at all about those kids, or do they stop caring once those kids are born. If there is anyone or anything that American politics and politicians are good for, it's the media, including comedians, especially satirists who get to make their living on reporting about dishonest and hypocritical our politicians are and stupid our people are who continue to vote for the same crooks and liars to continue to represent them in government. I guess it takes an asshole to know another asshole and if you are an asshole, why wouldn't you have anyone else other than asshole representing you: actually, why would an asshole deserve anyone better than another asshole representing them in government. American politics and government is garbage in and garbage out. And the people who give us our taxpayer funded garbage are the voters themselves. And this Alabama antiabortion story is a perfect example of that.